Posted
by
kdawson
on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @04:48AM
from the uncommon-carrier dept.

In Australia, a court wrapped up day one of what promises to be a 4-week trial of media interests against ISP iiNet. Reader bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports that Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft investigators claim to have recorded almost 100,000 instances of Australian internet service provider iiNet users making available online unauthorized copies of films and TV programs, lawyers for the film industry said in the Federal Court in Sydney today. The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network. iTnews also has a background piece on the case, with a Flash-y graph."

This just in! A group of car insurance companies just sued several state governments because they have allowed drivers to operate vehicles at unauthorized speeds, which led to accidents and higher insurance costs! Insurance companies know this because bicyclists have been watching how fast cars go, and they go way too fast!

Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding. That would make this lawsuit a little more feasible than what AFACT wants.

From what I gather, BT neither discourages or is expected to discourage the use of their phone network for things like buying controlled substances and arranging burglaries. That's normally left up to the police.

So the argument here is that the ISP is liable for illegal content exchange. What about the router manufacturer? How about the OS manufacturer? If the traffic was all encrypted, is the ISP on the hook for man-in-the-middle attacks to decrypt and inspect the content, or will they then be liable for invasion of privacy? Is there such a thing as privacy down under?

It's clearly the fault of the content producers. Without them there would be no infringement.

Anyway, there's an even better solution that the film industry should consider - banning the iTunes etc accounts associated with these IPs. I guess they prefer to damage other people's business though.

The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network.

I don't understand. Are your telecom providers forced to actively discourage illegal phone calls, such as bomb threats or sexual harassment? Are your book dealers forced to actively discourage photocopying of books? Are your radiostations forced to discourage people from turning on their radios in public locations without paying STIM? Are your pastry bakers forced to discourage people from throwing cakes at eachother? [youtube.com]

If they were to pass on the notices voluntarily, then AFACT would argue (in court) that iiNet have implicitly admitted that AFACT's methods and behaviour are valid. It's not any more complex than that.

As an internet provider it's kind of a pain in the ass to police the entire internet. It's not at all difficult to refuse to serve a problematic customer. Like the one that keeps demanding that you police the entire internet. You see where I'm going with this?

Believe me, speaking as an Australian this isn't our line of thought. From iinet's [iinet.net.au] news:

For the record, iiNet doesn't support any breaches of the law, including copyright theft. On the contrary, iiNet has led the industry with legal content offerings through our Freezone, including agreements with iTunes, ABC iView, Xbox, the West Australian Symphony Orchestra, Cruizin', Macquarie Digital TV, Barclays Premier League Football, Super 14 Rugby, Drift Racing 2007 and classic highlights of golf's four Majors.

We don't believe we should take any action which could result in the disconnection of a customer's service, based on poorly supported allegations. AFACT are asking us to be the investigator, judge and executioner despite their failure to provide us with tangible evidence.

The approach that AFACT has taken is akin to arguing that if a person were to use Australia Post to deliver a pirated DVD, Australia Post has authorised the pirated content on the DVD by delivering it.

And it seems, iinet's line of thinking, is more along the lines of what sensible aussies are thinking.

Death threats are sent through the telephone, we don't blame the Telephone Company.

People commit suicide on the railway, we don't blame the Train Company.

While all these things are prevented, or avoided, where possible, it is not the responsibility of the company to decide what an individual does, nor to take the blame when they do it.

Now apply this logic to ISP and a user downloading something, possibly legal, possibly illegal. (If it's inside a passworded RAR file, who the hell knows which is which anyway).

You can't shoot the messenger because the message he delivers says something you don't like.

Media Industry want ISPs to be their police, because they can't find an effective way of doing it themselves. If policing doesn't work, hell let't just blame the police becausethere are so many criminals.

What planet do these Media Industry people live on ?

Their sales model is dead, it is no longer an "Industry" as they don't need to make anything anymore. Just whack out the latest clone remake of some decent 70's / 80's movie, and offer DRM free downloads for $1...

I miss the days when Montana had no speed limit, except near the cities. We need more states like that. Interstates were designed for rapid travel (120 miles per hour). It seems silly to limit ourselves to only half that.